as well as society at large. >> how does the ftc. you may not this mr. soltani, you may not. how does the ftc monitor facebook's compliance? what's the process that takes place once the consent dedegree is entered to see that it's complied with? >> while i can't speak directly to that, i can point you to public academic research that examined that process and in that, kind of in that research, some key points highlighting the difficulty and essentially reviewing kind of these compliance audits that come to the agency. and i can point that to you in testimony later. >> thank you. >> to all three of the-- >> we take you live now on this wednesday to the u.s. senate which today will be considering a spending bill for energy and

water projects, the legislative branch, military construction and veterans programs. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer : the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who has created humanity in your image, look upon us and hear our prayers. today, give our lawmakers the desire to do your will and the

energy to complete the tasks that will glorify your name. that which they don't know, reveal it. that which they lack, supply it, and that which they doubt, verify it. keep them blameless in your service so that their lives will be living letters that will cause people to exalt your name. strengthen their minds for your service so that your wisdom will permeate their every endeavor. remind them to not forget the lost, the lonely, the least, the last, and the left out. we pray in your merciful name.

amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 20, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i here by appoint the honorable rand paul, a senator from the commonwealth of kentucky, who will perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business to closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 5895, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 449, h.r. 5895, an act making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies and so forth and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as i discussed on the floor yesterday, returning to regular order the appropriations process is at the forefront of the senate's agenda. actually, the bipartisan work of the appropriations committee led by chairman shelby, ranking member leahy, and the subcommittee chairman is actually becoming a reality. their efforts have already produced legislation for the full senate to consider, beginning this week with the combined measures for the legislative branch for energy and water and for military construction and the veterans administration. it's those last components that

i'd like to discuss this morning. 2018 has already brought significant legislative progress for america's men and women in uniform. earlier this year, congress and the president did away with arbitrary funding limits that had eroded our forces' comparative advantage. we delivered the largest year-on-year increase in funding for our troops in 15 years. now with the military construction and v.a. funding bill before us this week, the senate can keep the ball rolling. the committee's package would deliver mission-critical maintenance and improvements that are needed on installations both at home and abroad. it would support active duty personnel as well as national guard and reserve units. it would allocate significant resources for projects that reinforce key alliances and extend our influence around the world. in my home state of kentucky, it would mean major improvements to training facilities at both fort

knox, home of the army cadet human resources and recruiting commands and at fort campbell where the 101st airborne division and special operations forces prepare for evolving missions. but while underpinning the ongoing missions of our active forces, the legislation before us would also take critical steps to meet the individual needs of america's war fighters and their families here at home. it would allocate over $1.5 billion to operate and maintain military family housing facilities. it would provide for vital safety updates at overseas american military schools, part of a system that serves more than 66,000 children. hundreds of millions in additional funding would go to build and improve the network of military medical facilities which provide care to nearly 10 million service members and military families. finally, within the military construction legislation is important funding to support our

veterans. in addition to funding the maintenance and upkeep of v.a. health facilities, it goes further in targeting allocated resources to address the system's shortcomings. so, mr. president, especially when we talk about access to prompt quality care, the status quo is simply not good enough for america's veterans. for the more than -- the more than 300,000 kentucky veterans and for the millions of veterans nationwide, we can and we must do better. that's why this bill includes billions of dollars to improve claims processing and to cut down on backlogs and funding for treatment, mental health services, and preventing opioid misuse. there are plenty of good reasons to support this appropriations package, but one of the most compelling is the support delivered to our all-volunteer military and those who have served our country in uniform. so let's keep this legislation

moving this week. now, on another matter, speaking of government spending, we'll soon have an opportunity to save some of the money taxpayers entrust to us, thanks to the hard work of members including senator lee and chairman enzi, we will soon turn to a house-passed bill that acts on request to rescind nearly $15 billion in previously appropriated money that has gone unspent. this modest belt tightening would in no way infringe on the bipartisan spending deal that senators on both sides agreed to earlier this year. this savings package is 100% unrelated to that agreement. let me say that again. this savings package is 100% unrelated to the bipartisan agreement we reached earlier this year. it is totally separate. it simply pulls back a small amount of unspent funds from a variety of government accounts. if we, the people's elected

representatives, want to speak seriously about stewarding taxpayer money, surely we can vote to recapture these unspent funds that are not even currently in use. the president's modest rescissions request is entirely reasonable. it should be without controversy. i look forward to voting for it myself, and i would urge my fellow members to do the same. now, on one final matter, today marks six months since the tax cuts and jobs act passed congress. on friday, it will be six months since the president signed it into law. what a six months it's been. already americans have seen their paychecks grow as the i.r.s. withholds less of what they earn. already families are reaping the fruits of the new business tax code that gives american employers more ability to increase pay and create jobs. six months in, these tax cuts have already led employers to issue tax reform bonuses, raises, and new benefits to four

million workers and counting. that's welcome relief for middle-class families, but what about the long term? republicans know that enduring prosperity means thriving businesses competing to hire american workers, so we designed tax reform to flip the obama-er script and make america a more attractive place to invest, expand, and create jobs. for large companies, capital investment might mean breaking ground on new locations or purchasing state-of-the-art technology. if you're a mid-sized employer, it might mean filling your factory floor with new equipment. if you're a main street family business, it could mean expanding into the vacant storefront next door or buying new tools that will transform your day-to-day operations. in every case, you are placing a bet on your community and on your country. you are betting on american land, american equipment, and most importantly the future of the american workforce.

you're putting down roots here instead of shipping jobs overseas. this is precisely what we have seen in the past six months. earlier this year, apple announced plans to make $30 billion in capital investments over the next five years. new facilities, new data centers, and more than 20,000 new jobs. chipotle mexican grill announced a $50 million investment in upgrading and refurbishing their restaurants. carpenter technology is using tax reform to speed up a new $150 million facility in reading, pennsylvania. their new state-of-the-art mill will allow them to compete in new precision electronics manufacturing. new equipment can't be easily outsourced. neither can the jobs it will create. but sure enough, carpenter is partnering with a local community college to train a 21st century workforce. and remember, these businesses aren't just creating new opportunities themselves.

these projects also mean prosperity for american contractors and construction crews and it's not just the big guys. in west palm beach, florida, tax reform means new kitchen appliances to don raymond restaurant. in my home state of kentucky, glier meats means up a reform for improving production of their sausages. for a small business of fewer than 30 employees, it's a noteworthy opportunity. everywhere you turn, businesses large and small are going all in on the future of the united states. there is one more interesting thing the last six months have revealed just how impossible it is for our democratic colleagues to set aside their outdated tax-d-spend ideology. every democrat in the house and in the senate voted on party lines to block tax reform. they insisted the law wouldn't help american workers one bit. they said it would be a disaster. of course, the facts have

debunked those predictions, but are our democratic friends admitting they were wrong? nope. they are doubling down on this silliness. by now, we're all familiar with the house democratic leader's comments from january. she laughed at the four-figure bonuses that working families were celebrating and called it crumbs. earlier this month, she doubled down, quote, hip, hip, hooray, unemployment is down, but what does that mean for me? well, my democratic friends seem hopeful they can convince americans that tax cuts, bonuses, and a stellar job market are nothing to celebrate. talk about a tall order. while those rhetorical gymnastics keep them busy, republicans will keep up the fight for middle-class families. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that in whatever order you choose, senators crapo,

baldwin, and whitehouse each be given a minute, and then i be allowed to speak in leader time and the vote come immediately after that. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, in a few minutes, we are going to vote on the crapo-whitehouse amendment. i stand to support that amendment and encourage my colleagues all to vote in favor of it. i first want, though, to thank my colleague, senator whitehouse. he and i have worked together on a number of issues building bipartisan support to advance our ability to utilize nuclear energy in the united states. i also want to thank senator alexander and senator feinstein for their work to complete this omnibus appropriations bill and to continue to push to bring our appropriations process to regular order. our amendment focuses on the development of fuel sources for

our advanced nuclear reactors. the united states currently lacks both a supply of high -- haleu uranium, and a process to make haleu for advanced reactor designs. advanced reactor start-up cores require a high assay, lower enriched uranium. at the end of navy fuels' life, it contains highly enriched uranium with an average enrichment of 80%. current operating naval reactors have the potential to create a total of 100,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, and the department of energy estimates that the disposal of this spent nuclear fuel will cost about $100 billion. however, advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to reuse this spent nuclear fuel and to reduce the overall disposal costs.

h.e.u. repurpg for materials like spent naval fuel can be done using hybrid processes that use advanced dry head-in technologies followed by material recovery, which creates the fuel for our new advanced reactors. repurpg this spent fuel has the potential of reducing waste that would otherwise be disposed of at taxpayers' expense. approximately one metric ton of h.e.u. can create four usable tons for our new reactors. i encourage my colleagues to all support this legislation. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. first, let me say what a pleasure it has been to work with senator crapo on these issues. our situation is pretty simple. we have a united states navy that generates spent nuclear fuel through its operations. we have a united states industry

of next-generation nuclear technology that needs that spent fuel in order to test those innovative technologies. and we have extraordinary national labs with world-class expertise in handling that nuclear material and supporting that innovation. this amendment brings those three together, allows the u.s. navy's spent fuel to be delivered to national labs so that pursuant to a law that we just passed in the senate recently, the cooperation between the national labs and the nuclear innovation community can move forward. we have already passed this bill. i'll close by saying that there is something else in this that i think is worth us considering. we have an enormous national liability with respect to our existing stockpiles of nuclear

waste. we have presently no realistic plan for dealing with that. there is the prospect here, it is definitely a maybe -- i don't want to overpromise anything, but there is definitely a prospect and it is the intention of some of these next-generation technologies that we be able to develop nuclear technologies that will go through our nuclear waste stockpile and turn that into productive electricity generation. if we can get there, that would be a terrific holy grail. in the meantime, this is a smart and efficient way to support american innovation in these technologies. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes, and i again appreciate senator crapo's leadership on this and the extraordinary national lab that he has in his home state. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support might bipartisan

amendment regarding an essential medical isotope. this amendment that i have introduced along with senator portman would achieve three simple goals. it would safeguard and improve patient access to critical health screenings. it would promote medical innovations needed for cutting-edge diagnostics and new treatments, and it would move us away from our dependence on foreign sources of medical isotopes while supporting america's medical innovation industry. let me explain quickly why my amendment is needed. the united states does not currently produce the medical isotope our health care system uses the most. this isotope is used in medical screenings and helps 50,000 patients per day in the united states by providing early detection and enabling treatment of cancer and heart disease. u.s. patients are currently

relying on supplies of this key isotope that come from canada and the netherlands and south africa. this raises costs and risks supply disruptions, and mind you this isotope only lasts for three days. for security in the health care system and certainty in patient access to essential medical tests which are often needed in urgent situations, we must develop a domestic supply of these isotopes. the department of energy has diligently been working with the private sector to develop sources that are made in america, and this amendment would dedicate $20 million to ensure that work continues so we can secure domestic production as soon as possible. i urge my colleagues to support this important and bipartisan amendment. and i yield back.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, mr. president, as the purposeful, cynical, and shameful humanitarian crisis of family separation at the border continues to unfold, the vast majority of americans are looking to president trump's administration, which started this practice, to end it. the associated press recently reported that the trump administration has been sending babies and young children to what they call tender-age facilities. it is unconscionable -- unconscionable -- that the government of the united states is warehousing babies and toddlers alone in an institutional setting. the crisis was willfully and purposefully created by this president through his zero tolerance policy at the border. it can and should be ended by

the same mechanism. with a simple flick of the pen -- a simple flick of the pen -- the president can end this policy. if the president wants to borrow my pen, he can have it. but he can do it quickly and easily if he wants to. it's on his back. the administration must end this gratuitous, cruel, and counterproductive policy that has brought such pain to innocent children and so much shame on this nation. no law requires the separation of children from their families. no law says you must send babies to detention facilities. and no law is required to end it. 19 republicans here in the senate have already called on the trump administration to reverse or suspend this policy administratively without any congressional action.

if our republican colleagues and the republican leadership in particular want to solve this problem, they ought to be directing their attention to the other side of pennsylvania avenue, to the white house, because that's where it can get done, done well, and get done quickly. now, this is at the administration's doorstep to stop or sustain. the president's -- this is president trump's responsibility. he could fix it this morning if he actually wanted to fix it. instead, he points fingers of blame, he prevaricates, makes things up because he doesn't even want to own this policy. he knows how unpopular it is with the american people, but at the same time he sort of wants to tell his base, i'm with you, i'm with you. it's all of.

-- it's awful. now, there's this idea that congress could step in and pass legislation with family separation. that is highly, highly dubious and unlikely. when has this congress ever successfully passed immigration legislation in the last few years? never. it's an illusion. it is dubious that congress, the house and senate with republican majorities and strong right-wing elements that hate any change in immigration could successfully pass immigration. here are the problems. first, would speaker ryan agree to pass and put on the floor a narrow bill that just deals with this issue? has he ever done that before? never.

never. so even if the senate passed something, it would be dragged into -- in the house into a morass. second, would the president sign something that was reported in the newspaper that sarah huckabee sanders said she would not sign the bill that senator cruz is talking about. so what's the point? we want to solve this problem. and, third, will both republican leaders -- house and senate -- guarantee that a narrow bill will not have riders, poison pill riders that are unacceptable to large percentages of this body, not be added to any legislation? let's get those guarantees. no poison pill riders, senate leadership, house leadership agree, and speaker ryan has the votes to pass something over

there before we move on a legislative path when there's such an easy other path available, which is the president taking his pen and undoing what he has done. so the bottom line, my colleagues, is there's only one real solution, much as we would dream for another. and that is the president to solve this problem because the odds of any legislation being able to pass without poison pill riders -- house, senate, and be signed by the president -- is just about zero when the percentage that the president could solve this problem if he wants to is just about 100%. and one other thing -- i have to say it -- ted "c" a leading anti--- ted cruz, a leading anti-immigration advocate, must be feeling the heat. he's never been for modifying our immigration laws in any way

that helps immigrants. read some of his past statements. i ask the a question, is something cynical going on with some people? they want to get this off their back because they feel the heat, but they really don't want to solve the problem, because if they did, senator cruz and the others would do what 19 republicans have correctly done -- ask the president to solve the problem himself. now, i have comments on trade, on china, on tax, but i think i'll make those later because i know people are waiting. so i'd ask unanimous consent they be put in the record now and i'll come back and make those statements on the floor at a later time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the crapo amendment, number 2943, as modified.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 87, the nays are 9. the amendment is agreed to as modified. under the previous order, the question occurs on the baldwin amendment number 2985. the senator from ohio.

mr. portman: [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, this amendment we're about to vote on -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. portman: this amendment we're about to vote on senator baldwin spoke about a moment ago but it is $to million -- $20 million to a domestic isotope program. c.b.o. says it has no budget impact. we want to get away from using highly enriched uranium for national security reasons. i encourage you all to vote for this on both sides. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 95, the nays are 2. the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i have just returned from south florida where i went to a detention facility in homestead, florida. there are a thousand children in this detention facility. 94 of the 1,000 are children that have been separated from their families. despite being the senior senator of florida, despite having the oversight responsibility of the department of h.h.s., despite

the fact that in that oversight capacity we have the funding responsibility for the department of h.h.s. and one of its components, the office of refugee resettlement of which these children separated from their families are handled by that office, despite all of that, the deputy secretary of the department of h.h.s. refused to allow me to enter this facility and said that it was his policy, it was the department's policy that you have to fill out a form, which we had, but you have to wait two weeks before they would allow me to enter the facility, of which

the question is why do they not want the senator from florida to get into this detention facility where there are children that have been separated from their parents? and it must be that not only is this department policy, this is being directed from the president in the white house, and they don't want me to see it because they don't want us to know what is going on in there. i have subsequently found out that in addition to those 94 children, there are 174 children being held in my state of florida that have been separated from their families, and this is

the current debate. children that have been ripped apart from their moms and dads when, in fact, it has always been an american value to keep families together even when you are adjudicating the lawful or unlawful status of the parents. you always keep those children together on an immigration question, and yet president trump has now altered that policy. and despite all the finger pointing and the deflection, president trump and his administration knows that that's their policy. he doubled down on it last night but there's nothing in the law that requires them to tear

parents away from their children. there's nothing in the law that requires the administration to rip an infant from a parent's arms. some young enough still to be nursing. and the decision to enact this quite horrendous and shameful policy was a decision by this administration and this administration alone. and that's why this senator went to miami yesterday, because i wanted to see for myself. i wanted to see is the facility clean? are the children sleeping in beds or are they sleeping on the floor? are they having adequate care? and if they were, i could report that that was a good news story,

but i also wanted to be able to talk to the young children, the ones who had been separated. i had already gotten word from senator van hollen who had been in texas on saturday and met a mom there that said her child had been separated from her and that she was -- that child was in a detention facility in florida. i wanted to see that child. i am very proud of all of our colleagues who have come together to support legislation to keep these families together. 49 of us on this side of that aisle have signed on as cosponsors, all of us on this side of the aisle, and the

policy of this legislation is simply don't separate families in this question of immigration. and it would prohibit the separation of those families. now, that's been the policy. all the president would have to do is to say it. but it looks like he taking the position that he has, maybe then the only recourse is for us to pass this law. i'm proud of our colleagues on that side of the aisle who have rightfully stood up and publicly condemned this practice, because every american knows that taking children from their parents is just not right.

if a family is legitimately fleeing violence, repression, and conditions that most of us cannot imagine, they have a right under american law to present themselves at the border and ask for asylum. past administrations of both parties have recognized this, which is why they acted with compassion and refused to do what the trump administration is doing now. and it's certainly time that we return to our true american value of keeping families together. and because of the passage of a statute is a long shot, it's really not up to us. it's up to the president.

he could say it and it would be done. no matter what we do here in this chamber, the power to end this shameful chapter in our nation's history lies with the president and his pen. he can sign an executive order today just as easily as he can sign a law that we pass here in congress. either way, it's up to him. he doesn't need congress to act. he and he alone is allowing this shameful practice to continue, and he alone can stop it right now. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. lee: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i first want to respond to something that was said a moment ago. it is not he and he alone that

did settlement it. congress is the policy making body in the federal government. we are the law-making body in the federal government. we can make changes to the law, and we can't lose sight of that fact. madam president, pursuant to title 10 of the budget control act of 1974, i have a discharge petition at the desk and move to discharge from the senate committee on appropriations and budget h.r. 3 to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded and special messages transmitted to the congress by the president on may 8, 2018. the presiding officer: pursuant to section 101-7-b of the congressional budget and empowerment control act of 1974, there will now be up to one hour of debate on the motion to discharge, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. who yields time? mr. lee: madam president. madam president, over the next ten years, our national debt is

set to bloom from $21.16 trillion today to more than $33.9 trillion in 2028. with interest rates set to increase, the payments on the debt will also likely double over the next ten years as a percentage of total economic output. consider for a moment the fact that we're paying a little more than $300 billion a year to service our debt. it's not that much more than we were paying a couple of decades ago when our national debt was roughly one-fifth, one-sixth of its current size. the only reason that our debt service payments are as low as they are today is because our interest rates are at all-time risk lows. our treasury yield rates are artificially, historically, aberrationally severely low. the situation gets a lot worse if our artificially,

historically low interest rates increase or start to return to their historical averages at a pace quicker than has been projected, as is easily possible. for example, if interest rates were to return just to historical norms -- i'm not talking about a rebound above the historical average. just a rebound to historical norms -- taxpayers would soon be drowning in trillion-dollar annual interest payments, just for the interest on our debt. that means just the difference between what we're paying in our debt service payment now and what we would be paying then, possibly just a few short years from now is more than we spend on the department of defense. this is really frightening, and this is why it's such welcome news that there is some movement on this front. that's why it was such welcome news that on may 8, president trump sent to congress a request to rescind $15.4 billion worth of extraneous spending. now, this is something that congress used to do all the

time. this is something that in decades past would occur dozens, even scores of times during a single presidential administration, and it was a bipartisan matter, of course, returning unused taxpayer money isn't just good government. in a republic, it should be expected. it should be the norm. in 1981, president reagan and a divided congress rescinded more than $15 billion in federal spending and another $16 billion in 1985 and 1986. president clinton made three rescission requests in 2000, totaling $128 million. now we have the chance to take up the mantle again. president trump's specific proposals draw back unused funds from expired programs, obsolete programs, and accounts that the congressional budget office says are wildly, needlessly overfunded. in fact, according to c.b.o.,

none of the funds in the requested rescissions would alter current federal programs in any way. for instance, c.b.o. has certified that the $7 billion chip rescission would not affect either outlays or the number of americans with health insurance. and i should note that congress has rescinded chip funding in every enacted labor-laifs appropriations -- h.h.l. appropriations bill since 2011. more than $50 billion in total during that time period. the spending targeted for rescission is either expired or rendered unattainable by current eligibility requirements. this $15 billion is just sitting. it's unused in agency accounts. so how does it help to cut spending if this money is just sitting there? this is the realisticking point, madam pres